AnsweredAssumed Answered

Developer friendly vs. raw BPMN 2.0

Question asked by chris.joelly on Jan 8, 2011
Latest reply on Mar 8, 2011 by bernd.ruecker

i am playing with Activity and the various tools and sometimes they drive me crazy :)
The naming scheme of the models is a trial and error thing till u figure out that naming
your models is best without blanks whenever a name field pops up, because the name
is used e.g. in the Maven POM file and thus had to follow the artefactId scheme of Maven.

Then, there is the developer friendly and raw BPMN 2.0 xml format. As i assume, because
i could not try myself till now, the raw format includes the "svg'able" definition of the
diagram. Unfortunately it is not so easy to merge the developer friendly format with the
diagram part from the raw format. If u think of using only the raw format then u run into
troubles with the unit tests when u want to deploy and test against the developer friendly
names… So, another mess :)

Why is there so a mix of this things? Is it possible to align the tool chain so that we

a) have one model
b) the one and only model contains the process definition as flow and diagram and
c) in a developer friendly way?

This would make things much easier… at least i think that would make the development
process a little easier, especially in the beginning…